Constitution and death threats

By Gamini Abeywardane

The need for a new constitution has already been accepted by almost all political parties in the country. Following the end of thirty years long bitter war the general expectation among the people has been to set aside the old differences and concentrate on developing the country. In this background a new government was voted into power with the idea of changing the political culture of the country. Adopting a new constitution is an important step in these developments.

While some progress has been made in developing a constitution, so far no final decision has been made and what is before the parliament is only a set of proposals. It is up to the parliament to debate and decide what is best for the country. While this remains the actual situation, there seem to be organized efforts to scuttle the progression of a new constitution and the climax of these attempts is the death threat on Member of Parliament Dr Jayampathy Wickramaratne who has been in the forefront of the campaign for a new constitution.
Here the main grouse of the people who are trying to undermine all efforts to draft a new constitution seems to be their opposition to devolve power to the periphery mainly to the northern and eastern provinces. Any further devolution, in their eyes, seems to be equivalent to dividing the country. These elements seem to have failed to understand that it is our reluctance to power sharing which resulted in the bitter war that cost us dearly in terms of loss of human life, destruction of property and loss of economic opportunity pushing the country backwards almost by half a century.   

Several efforts to settle this issue were scuttled by extremist groups in the past. Unfortunately in our country history seems to be repeating itself. The first effort to solve this problem, Bandaranaike-Chelvanayakam Pact of 1957 was defeated by extremists both in the south and the north. The same fate befell two other efforts, namely Dudley-Chelvanayakam Pact of 1965 and another attempt during the presidency of Chandrika Kumaratunga to pass a new constitution. The ongoing constitutional process is the fourth such genuine attempt at resolving the ethnic issue once and for all.

Though the government of President Mahinda Rajapaksa succeeded in crushing the LTTE which was in control of the north of the country the conclusion of the war has entangled the country in a human rights issue with the United Nations and the UNHRC wherein the country’s military has become answerable for some grave human rights violations.

Any further delay or failure to find a constitutional solution to the national issue will only worsen our position with regard to the UN inquiry into these alleged HR violations. Such a failure could not only lead to another bitter war but will also place us in an unfavourable situation internationally with a massive amount of sympathy for the cause of the Tamil community which could result in direct foreign involvement.

One must also not forget that it was President Mahinda Rajapaksa who following his military victory over the LTTE promised a ‘thirteen plus’ solution to the government of India. That necessarily meant full implementation of the current thirteenth amendment to the constitution which includes limited police and land powers to the provinces plus something more. Therefore all opposition parties which recognize his leadership also should technically support a new constitution. Any provision untoward or which has divisive tendencies can be debated and amended or even defeated in a future referendum. But one should not throw the baby with the bath water. If at all, a new constitution is passed it will be by the parliament and by the people through a referendum and not by Jayampathy Wickramaratne who is only one individual MP.

Making political capital out of this issue will only make things worse for the future of the country. It goes without saying that future success of the country particularly its economic development is closely linked to national reconciliation. Therefore, duty of all Sri Lankans at this moment is to support the evolution of a proper constitution for the country and not to scuttle it by going to the desperate level of issuing death threats which in ultimate sense are a threat to the future progress of the country.

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

Reforms, protests and the future

 

Question remains how we can go ahead with some reasonable reforms in the face of growing protests. The government also has to be cautious and methodical in dealing with these issues. Sadly the actions of the government in this regard have not been in that direction.

By Gamini Abeywardane

Reforms are vital to any country or society. It’s because everything has to change with times. As a country grows and population multiplies priorities have to change. It is through reforms that we adjust ourselves to face tomorrow’s problems.

As much as they are vital the reforms are often resisted by the people concerned irrespective of whether they are necessary for wellbeing of the people at large or not. Today we see in our country a wave of protests over a wide spectrum of issues in areas ranging from transport to health and education. Hardly a day goes by without some protest or threat of strike over something.

Take the education sector for example. There is an imbalance between what is produced and what is in demand. Our state higher education sector over the years has been producing the graduates with lessor skills who are often not employed by the private sector of the economy.  Private sector higher education institutions affiliated to foreign universities have come forward to bridge this gap. Those who are able to afford made use of the opportunities and nobody has protested.

However whenever the government steps in to reform the state owned university system either by reducing the intake of students into areas where there is no demand or by effecting other changes whereby students would be directed to technical skills which are in demand, usually there is a lot of pretest.

In the field of medical education the opportunities are limited in the government universities despite many students obtaining high marks in relevant subjects at the university entrance exam. Still there is a shortage of doctors if we go by the WHO standards on doctor patient ratio. However, any attempt to award medical degrees through the private sector higher education institutions is much resisted by doctors and medical students almost as a matter of policy although issues about standards are often cited by those who are opposing.

In the transport sector any attempt to discipline the bus operators, the three wheeler drivers or the motor bike riders despite their massive contribution to fatal road accidents are often resisted in an organized manner with transport strikes. Despite massive losses and unutilized potential for future development in the railway department any idea of modifying it is resisted in the most severe manner as all employees are complacent with its current status whatever the burden it adds to the economy.

The same situation prevails in all other state institutions that require reforms. If there are issues with the way the reforms are done, the employees concerned have a moral right to oppose. It would also be justifiable for other political parties to take up these matters at the right platforms. But what is often happening today is opposing the very idea of reform looking at things from a narrow angle.
However the fact remains that we as a country cannot go forward without these important reforms. Successive governments who understood these issues have often postponed such reforms for reasons of political expediency. Now we have come to a situation where we cannot afford to postpone these reforms any longer.  

Question remains how we can go ahead with some reasonable reforms in the face of growing protests. The government also has to be cautious and methodical in dealing with these issues. Sadly the actions of the government in this regard have not been in that direction. Taking some haphazard steps and retracting in the face of mounting opposition will only allow protestors to earn some brownie points in the eyes of the people. It’s much better to study the issues properly and take informed decisions than doing half-right things in a hurry.

Our future success as a nation will to a great extent will depend on our ability to implement these social and economic reforms. The best approach to achieve these reform targets is to create sufficient public awareness before trying to implement them, so that most of the negative public reactions can be avoided. Protestors will protest, but public at large will not sympathise with them if such public awareness is created beforehand.

 

Read More